• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Cindy Sheehan arrested........

NYStateofMind

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
281
Reaction score
14
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It's you who doesn't get it it is not a Declaration of War which is of importance it is the War Powers of the President which are at issue these war powers were given to the President on September 14, 2001 in a Joint Resolution of Congress. There is no legal difference between a formal Declaration of War and an a Joint Resolution of Congress granting the President the War powers.

That passage has nothing to do with the war powers of the President the FISA act which was written in peace time does not trump the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

That, my friend, is for the courts to sort out. I'm simply pointing out that there is a difference. You asked for for an example, there it is.

Whether a law is written in peacetime or wartime has no bearing on which "trumps" which. There are legal scholars on both sides making good points, that isn't one of them!

As far as being disingenuous, nope. I didn't say it was Eisenhower's war, just that he sent the first troops in. That's a fact. It's also a fact that Nixon got us out of it. As far as I'm concerned, it wasn't a Democrat's war or a Republican's war, it was a war that ALL Americans have had to deal with....just like our current war. No matter who sends the troops there, it's an AMERICAN war. I just like the facts to be straight, and TOT seems to like to play fast and loose with them.

I also don't like the suggestion that the lives lost under Eisenhower are somehow less important than the ones lost after that. Shame, shame, shame. Who is supporting the troops? Oh, that's right, the Republicans....as long as it's the current war, but not a so-called Democratic war? I support them no matter who sent them there.
 

NYStateofMind

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
281
Reaction score
14
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
They were not there in a combat role rather an adivsory one.

Again, shame on you for dismissing the sacrifice these soldiers made. They were killed in action, they didn't die sitting at a conference table as you seem to imply.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
NYStateofMind said:
That, my friend, is for the courts to sort out. I'm simply pointing out that there is a difference. You asked for for an example, there it is.

Whether a law is written in peacetime or wartime has no bearing on which "trumps" which. There are legal scholars on both sides making good points, that isn't one of them!

As far as being disingenuous, nope. I didn't say it was Eisenhower's war, just that he sent the first troops in. That's a fact. It's also a fact that Nixon got us out of it. As far as I'm concerned, it wasn't a Democrat's war or a Republican's war, it was a war that ALL Americans have had to deal with....just like our current war. No matter who sends the troops there, it's an AMERICAN war. I just like the facts to be straight, and TOT seems to like to play fast and loose with them.

I also don't like the suggestion that the lives lost under Eisenhower are somehow less important than the ones lost after that. Shame, shame, shame. Who is supporting the troops? Oh, that's right, the Republicans....as long as it's the current war, but not a so-called Democratic war? I support them no matter who sent them there.


It's not for the Courts to decide it's settled law when the President is granted the war powers he is granted all of the war powers. If you want to dispute the Constitutionality of the war powers resolution in and of itself then go right ahead but no one in this country can not be found guilty of any crime if the law is written after the fact. Ex Post Facto partna.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
NYStateofMind said:
Again, shame on you for dismissing the sacrifice these soldiers made. They were killed in action, they didn't die sitting at a conference table as you seem to imply.

I have done no such thing a soldier who is not killed during wartime has made just as great a sacrifice, however, the Vietnam War didn't really start for the U.S. until the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which was passed by a Democratic President named LBJ, get over it the Vietnam War was the Democrats war.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Pacridge said:
I see so they didn't die in combat?

They could have died in combat that doesn't mean the war had started the war didn't start for us until the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Example we weren't at war with AlQaeda after the U.S.S. Cole attack even though soldiers were killed by the enemy we were not officially at war with AlQaeda until the Joint Powers Resolution of September 14, 2001 so you can say that this is a Republican war even though we were fighting with AlQaeda under the Clinton administration.
 

NYStateofMind

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
281
Reaction score
14
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It's not for the Courts to decide it's settled law when the President is granted the war powers he is granted all of the war powers. If you want to dispute the Constitutionality of the war powers resolution in and of itself then go right ahead but no one in this country can not be found guilty of any crime if the law is written after the fact. Ex Post Facto partna.
What are you talking about? Crime, law written after the fact? Where did you get that from? You are going very far afield.

If you want to get further into the debate re: FISA, there are plenty of other threads already going. That wasn't my intention when I posted the link. That was simply an illustrative example.

I believe I've stated my points pretty clearly, you just refuse to acknowledge them. There isn't much point in repeating them.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
NYStateofMind said:
What are you talking about? Crime, law written after the fact? Where did you get that from? You are going very far afield.

If you want to get further into the debate re: FISA, there are plenty of other threads already going. That wasn't my intention when I posted the link. That was simply an illustrative example.

I believe I've stated my points pretty clearly, you just refuse to acknowledge them. There isn't much point in repeating them.

You are arguing that this war is illegal or that we are not at war because the President excercised his war powers under the statutory resolution rather than a formal declaration of war and I am saying that statutory authorization is settled law in granting the president the war powers there is no legal distinction made between a statutory resolution for the use of force and a formal declaration of war, that's simply the current situation.

Now you can argue that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional in and of itself but that is neither here nor there, because unless it was deemed to be unconstitutional before the President used it as justification to call upon article 2 section 2 then it is irrelevant because of ex post facto.

Your points are moot; the war powers under Article 2 section 2 of the Constitution have been granted to the President on September 14, 2001 in a Joint Resolution of Congress, in full accordance with the war powers resolution of 1973. Case dismissed.
 
Last edited:

NYStateofMind

Active member
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
281
Reaction score
14
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You are arguing that this war is illegal or that we are not at war because the President excercised his war powers under the statutory resolution rather than a formal declaration of war and I am saying that statutory authorization is settled law in granting the president the war powers there is no legal distinction made between a statutory resolution for the use of force and a formal declaration of war, that's simply the current situation.
Where did I argue that this war is illegal? Or any war, for that matter? I said that Congress has not declared war since WW II. Don't put words into my mouth.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Now you can argue that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional in and of itself but that is neither here nor there, because unless it was deemed to be unconstitutional before the President used it as justification to call upon article 2 section 2 then it is irrelevant because of ex post facto.

You can argue that with yourself all you want, I never argued any of that. :rofl

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Your points are moot; the war powers under Article 2 section 2 of the Constitution have been granted to the President on September 14, 2001 in a Joint Resolution of Congress, in full accordance with the war powers resolution of 1973. Case dismissed.
Weren't we talking about the Vietnam? I thought we were talking about Vietnam.....sheesh, one of us needs to start paying attention better.....
Hello.....it helps if you pay attention to what the other person said......:2wave:

Ok, I'm done playing in the sandbox now.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
NYStateofMind said:
Where did I argue that this war is illegal? Or any war, for that matter? I said that Congress has not declared war since WW II. Don't put words into my mouth.



You can argue that with yourself all you want, I never argued any of that. :rofl


Weren't we talking about the Vietnam? I thought we were talking about Vietnam.....sheesh, one of us needs to start paying attention better.....
Hello.....it helps if you pay attention to what the other person said......:2wave:

Ok, I'm done playing in the sandbox now.


Perhaps I misunderstood your argument I understand it is not an formal declaration of war but in reality there is no difference, the President has the same powers under a congressional resolution for the use of military force as he does for a Declaration of War. It's a semantics game. We are in a state of war and have been since this country was attacked on 9-11. The reason why congress doesn't declare war anymore is so they can do exactly what the Democrats are doing now they can look strong on defense while at the same time pander to their leftist base. I for one think that the war powers resolution is in and of itself unconstitutional and should be thrown out so congress can't play these little word games anymore.
 

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Two problems here,

1) the U.N. doesn't trump our national soveriegnty if Truman didn't want the war in Korea he would have had us veto it in our vote on the Security Council.

Nobody ever said it did. However we had a treaty obligation, and treaty law is second only to the Constitution in law. The claim was made that Truman started the wear, he did not. It is as simple as that.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
2) Under Eisenhower the troop levels were minimul and we were there in an advisory rather than combat roll, under Kennedy, however, we assasinated the South Vietnamese President and ensured that we were there to stay. (though I am for the Vietnam war, it was a Democratic war none the less.)

The claim was made that Kennedy started the war, he did not. Troops fought in combat and died under the Presidency of the man who first put is there, the Republican Eisenhower. Obviously Kennedy didn't start it. You can argue accurately that he escalated it, but he did not start it any moire than Clinton started Somalia.

I love how when you claims are shown false you try and shift what you say your claims were. Remind you of anyone? "It was the WMD's!" "No, it was the nuclear program!" No it was Iraq was supporting al-Qeada!" Wait, we were liberating the Iraqi people!"

Yet these are the very same people that accuse those of us who don't believe in mythical sky-lords lack any core morality? :rofl
 

Vandeervecken

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
744
Reaction score
1
Location
Midland MI USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
When granted the war powers the President is granted the inherent war powers under Article 2 Section 2 so what the hell is the difference if he is granted the war powers through a declaration of war, a joint resolution of congress, or an attack upon this country? The net result is the same, in all three instances the president is granted the war powers so your point is moot.

The differences are many and varied. Some points for you to ponder:

If you claim there are no differences, then why did the war powers act list three different levels of conflict? If it recognises these three things are different, then are then not different?

If you do not understand that differeing legal acts contain differeing legal standards do you indeed have even the most basic knowledge necessary to engage in a meaningful debate on this subject?

Here are a few things for you to read to start getting a baisc grounding on the subject:


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101facomment83101/kenneth-roth/the-law-of-war-in-the-war-on-terror.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Vandeervecken said:
Nobody ever said it did. However we had a treaty obligation, and treaty law is second only to the Constitution in law. The claim was made that Truman started the wear, he did not. It is as simple as that.

What treaty obligation?

I didn't say Truman started the war. I was the war started in the Truman presidency. North Korea started the war, Truman pressed (rightly in my opinion) for American involvement.

The claim was made that Kennedy started the war, he did not. Troops fought in combat and died under the Presidency of the man who first put is there, the Republican Eisenhower. Obviously Kennedy didn't start it. You can argue accurately that he escalated it, but he did not start it any moire than Clinton started Somalia.

The war for the US began in earnest in the Johnson Administration. Unlike Korea, we DID have a treaty obligation here and we were fulfilling it. The SEATO treaty has a provision that included South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos in the alliances security umbrella even though they were not formal members of the alliance.

As for Somalia, Clinton didn't start it, but Clinton made the decision to put US forces under UN command.
 
Last edited:

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Vandeervecken said:
Nobody ever said it did. However we had a treaty obligation, and treaty law is second only to the Constitution in law. The claim was made that Truman started the wear, he did not. It is as simple as that.

Truman pressured the U.N. to pass the resolution to act against North Korea, for you to say that he didn't want the war is simply fallacious.
The claim was made that Kennedy started the war, he did not. Troops fought in combat and died under the Presidency of the man who first put is there, the Republican Eisenhower. Obviously Kennedy didn't start it. You can argue accurately that he escalated it, but he did not start it any moire than Clinton started Somalia.

Once Kennedy had the South Vietnamese President the U.S. was committed. Through LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin Resolution the war actually began.
I love how when you claims are shown false you try and shift what you say your claims were. Remind you of anyone? "It was the WMD's!" "No, it was the nuclear program!" No it was Iraq was supporting al-Qeada!" Wait, we were liberating the Iraqi people!"

Every single one of those reasons was given in the Joint Resolution of Congress authorizing the use of force on October 16, 2002. So ya you're right.
Yet these are the very same people that accuse those of us who don't believe in mythical sky-lords lack any core morality? :rofl

You don't understand the build up to the Iraq war anymore than you do the war in Korea or Vietnam. Is revisionist history fun?
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Vandeervecken said:
The differences are many and varied. Some points for you to ponder:

If you claim there are no differences, then why did the war powers act list three different levels of conflict? If it recognises these three things are different, then are then not different?

If you do not understand that differeing legal acts contain differeing legal standards do you indeed have even the most basic knowledge necessary to engage in a meaningful debate on this subject?

Here are a few things for you to read to start getting a baisc grounding on the subject:


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101facomment83101/kenneth-roth/the-law-of-war-in-the-war-on-terror.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

There is no legal difference between a Formal Declaration of War and a Congressional Resolution authorizing the use of force, in either case the President is granted the full war powers under Article 2 section 2.

Now if you want to argue the Constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 in and of itself then I would be more inclined to agree with you but until the Supreme Court rules one way or another, as it stands it is the law of the land, end of story.
 

Gill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
8,713
Reaction score
1,907
Location
The Derby City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Not using the word "war" is also seen as being more public relations-friendly. For these reasons, they have generally ceased to issue declarations of war, instead describing their actions by euphemisms such as "police action" or "authorized use of force."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war
If you read your own links, you would note that a declaration of war and an authorization to use military force are one and the same.
 

Gill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
8,713
Reaction score
1,907
Location
The Derby City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Cindy's for sale !!! It seems that Cindy Sheehan has placed herself on E-Bay. That's right, a speech from Cindy is for sale with all proceeds going to that far, far, far left blog site DailyKos. I wonder how much Cindy gets from this?

ebaycindy.jpg

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6034322259
 
Top Bottom